[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 134 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>






116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 134

   Expressing the sense of the Senate that the Department of Justice 
  should reverse its position in Texas v. United States, No. 4:18-cv-
                          00167-O (N.D. Tex.).


_______________________________________________________________________


                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 2, 2019

 Mrs. Shaheen (for herself, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Wyden, Mrs. Murray, Mrs. 
Feinstein, Mr. Jones, Mr. Brown, Mr. Carper, Ms. Rosen, Mr. Durbin, Mr. 
Murphy, Mr. Booker, Mr. Reed, Mr. Tester, Ms. Hirono, Ms. Baldwin, Ms. 
  Klobuchar, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Van Hollen, Mr. Warner, Mr. 
   Peters, Mr. Whitehouse, Ms. Hassan, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Udall, Mr. 
 Merkley, Mr. Manchin, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Menendez, Ms. Cortez Masto, 
Mr. Cardin, Ms. Sinema, Ms. Duckworth, Mr. Markey, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr. 
 Coons, Ms. Warren, Mr. Heinrich, Mr. Casey, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Kaine, 
Mr. Schatz, Ms. Smith, Mr. Bennet, Mr. King, and Ms. Harris) submitted 
 the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the 
                               Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION


 
   Expressing the sense of the Senate that the Department of Justice 
  should reverse its position in Texas v. United States, No. 4:18-cv-
                          00167-O (N.D. Tex.).

Whereas, on February 26, 2018, 18 State attorneys general and 2 Governors filed 
        a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District 
        of Texas, Texas v. United States, No. 4:18-cv-00167-O (N.D. Tex.) (in 
        this preamble referred to as ``Texas v. United States''), arguing that 
        the requirement of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 
        (Public Law 111-148; 124 Stat. 119) (in this preamble referred to as the 
        ``ACA'') to maintain minimum essential coverage is unconstitutional and, 
        as a result, the court should invalidate the entire law;
Whereas, in a June 7, 2018, letter to Congress, then Attorney General Jefferson 
        Sessions announced that the Department of Justice--

    (1) would not defend the constitutionality of the minimum essential 
coverage provision; and

    (2) would argue that provisions protecting individuals with pre-
existing medical conditions (specifically the provisions commonly known as 
``community rating'' and ``guaranteed issue'') are inseverable from the 
minimum essential coverage provision and should be invalidated;

Whereas, in the June 7, 2018, letter to Congress, Attorney General Sessions also 
        advised Congress that ``the Department will continue to argue that 
        Section 5000A(a) is severable from the remaining provisions of the 
        ACA'', indicating a difference from the plaintiffs' position in Texas v. 
        United States;
Whereas, on December 14, 2018, the United States District Court for the Northern 
        District of Texas issued an order that declared the requirement to 
        maintain minimum essential coverage unconstitutional and struck down the 
        ACA in its entirety, including protections for individuals with pre-
        existing medical conditions;
Whereas the decision of the United States District Court for the Northern 
        District of Texas was stayed and is pending appeal before the United 
        States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit;
Whereas, on March 25, 2019, the Department of Justice, in a letter to the United 
        States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, changed its position and 
        announced that the entire ruling of the United States District Court for 
        the Northern District of Texas should be upheld and the entire ACA 
        should be declared unconstitutional;
Whereas, prior to 2014, individuals with pre-existing medical conditions were 
        routinely denied health insurance coverage, subject to coverage 
        exclusions, charged unaffordable premium rates, exposed to unaffordable 
        out-of-pocket costs, and subject to lifetime and annual limits on health 
        insurance coverage;
Whereas as many as 133,000,000 nonelderly people in the United States--

    (1) have a pre-existing condition and could have been denied coverage 
or only offered coverage at an exorbitant price had they needed individual 
market health insurance prior to 2014; and

    (2) will lose protections for pre-existing conditions if the ruling of 
the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas is 
upheld in Texas v. United States;

Whereas, as of March 2019, employers cannot place lifetime or annual limits on 
        health coverage for their employees, and if the ruling of the United 
        States District Court for the Northern District of Texas is upheld, more 
        than 100,000,000 people in the United States who receive health 
        insurance through their employer could once again face lifetime or 
        annual coverage limits;
Whereas, prior to 2010, Medicare enrollees faced massive out-of-pocket 
        prescription drug costs once they reached a certain threshold known as 
        the Medicare ``donut hole'', and since the donut hole began closing in 
        2010, millions of Medicare beneficiaries have saved billions of dollars 
        on prescription drugs;
Whereas, at a time when 3 in 10 adults report not taking prescribed medicines 
        because of the cost, if the ruling of the United States District Court 
        for the Northern District of Texas is upheld, seniors enrolled in 
        Medicare would face billions of dollars in new prescription drug costs;
Whereas, as of March 2019, 37 States and the District of Columbia have expanded 
        or voted to expand Medicaid to individuals with incomes below 138 
        percent of the Federal poverty level, providing health coverage to more 
        than 12,000,000 newly eligible people;
Whereas, if the ruling of the United States District Court for the Northern 
        District of Texas is upheld, the millions of individuals and families 
        who receive coverage from Medicaid could lose eligibility and no longer 
        have access to health care;
Whereas, as of March 2019, many people who buy individual health insurance are 
        provided tax credits to reduce the cost of premiums and assistance to 
        reduce out-of-pocket costs such as copays and deductibles, which has 
        made individual health insurance coverage affordable for millions of 
        people in the United States for the first time;
Whereas, if the ruling of the United States District Court for the Northern 
        District of Texas is upheld, the health insurance individual exchanges 
        would be eliminated and millions of people in the United States who buy 
        health insurance on the individual marketplaces could lose coverage and 
        would see premium expenses for individual health insurance increase 
        exorbitantly; and
Whereas, if the ruling of the United States District Court for the Northern 
        District of Texas is upheld, people in the United States would lose 
        numerous consumer protections, including the requirements that--

    (1) plans offer preventive care without cost-sharing;

    (2) young adults can remain on their parents' insurance plan until age 
26; and

    (3) many health insurance plans offer a comprehensive set of essential 
health benefits such as maternity care, addiction treatment, and 
prescription drug coverage: Now, therefore, be it

    Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that the Department of 
Justice should--
            (1) protect individuals with pre-existing conditions, 
        seniors struggling with high prescription drug costs, and the 
        millions of people in the United States who newly gained health 
        insurance coverage since 2014; and
            (2) reverse its position in Texas v. United States, No. 
        4:18-cv-00167-O (N.D. Tex.).
                                 <all>